Search for: "Com. v. Doe"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,575
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2010, 8:05 am
A.C. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 1:35 pm
V. [read post]
20 Nov 2006, 9:00 pm
Com. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 1:12 pm
Com. [read post]
28 Dec 2006, 12:50 am
Com., Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 11:19 am
V. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 11:19 am
V. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 6:41 am
Today in Com. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 3:30 pm
Co. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 4:15 am
Goodyear Rubber Co. remains good law and resolves the question presented in the present case, 2) Sound trademark policy supports the conclusion that adding a top-level domain, such as .com, to a generic term does not lead to a protectable trademark, and 3) Booking.com’s survey evidence does not provide a sound basis for treating the term “Booking.com” as a registrable trademark. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Coastal Com. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 5:50 am
Wade y acá Doe v. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 1:51 pm
Background on Booking.com B.V. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 7:32 am
Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Com. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 8:42 am
The Ninth Circuit’s Doe 14 v. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 6:53 am
" ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 9:54 pm
Com. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 33, 43, 168 P.2d 686.) [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:25 am
Crawford, 715 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. 2011); Com v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 1:36 pm
Com., which reversed (unanimously) the Virginia Court of Appeals decision en banc in Moore v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 11:49 am
In United States Patent and Trademark Office v Booking.com BV, the court upheld a Fourth Circuit decision stating that simply adding a top-level domain to a generic term does not render the mark generic in its entirety. [read post]
